Henry is an excellent patient, lies quietly in bed & is ready to swallow anything …

Tuesday is in my brain …

Dear friends and readers,

A separate blog for an important letter — it is rich with matter. It introduces another phase of the letters (121-133), about Austen’s publication as a respected author, of Emma, with ensuing correspondence by Henry to John Murray, Jane to Murray; the letters to the Prince Regent’s librarian, James Stanier Clarke, whom, like it or not, represented a rare meeting for Jane Austen with a professed and actual literary person, with connections. Henry falls ill, partly under a strain from coming bankruptcy.

We glimpse from afar one possible flirtation: with William Seymour, Henry’s firm’s lawyer, and we will see another (her rival Fanny Austen Knight) Charles Haden, the apothecary hired to help during Henry’s momentarily grave illness.

No less important in understanding the atmosphere and milieu that Jane did have to live in daily: niece Caroline sends a manuscript of her novel for her aunt to read.

We begin with the text:

Tuesday 17- Wednesday 18 October 1815
Hans Place, Tuesday Oct. 17.

My dear Cassandra

Thank you for your two Letters. I am very glad the new Cook begins so well. Good apple pies are a considerable part of our domestic happiness — Mr Murray’s Letter is come; he is a Rogue of course, but a civil one. He offers £450 — but wants to have the Copyright of MP. & S&S included. It will end in my publishing for myself I dare say. — He sends more praise however than I expected. It is an amusing Letter. You shall see it. — Henry came home on Sunday & we dined the same day with the Herrieses — a large family party — clever & accomplished. — I had a pleasant visit the day before. Mr Jackson is fond of eating & does not much like Mr or Miss Papillon — What weather we have — What shall we do about it? — The 17th of October & summer still! Henry is not quite well — a bilious bilious attack with fever — he came back early from Harley Street yesterday & went to bed — the comical consequence of which was that Mr Seymour & I dined together tete-a-tete. — He is calomeling & therefore in a way to be better & I hope may be well tomorrow. The Creeds of Hendon dine here today, which is rather unlucky – for he will hardly be able to shew himself — they are all Strangers to me. He has asked Mr Tilson to come & take his place. I doubt our being a very agreable pair. — We are engaged tomorrow to Cleveland Row — I was there yesterday morning. — There seems no idea now of Mr Gordon’s going to Chawton — nor of any of the family coming here at present. Many of them are sick. Wednesday.–

Henry’s illness is more serious than I expected. He has been in bed since three o’clock on Monday. It is a fever — something bilious, but cheifly Inflammatory. I am not alarmed — but I have determined to send this Letter today by the post, that you may know how things are going on. There is no chance of his being able to leave Town on Saturday. I asked Mr Haden that question today. — Mr Haden is the apothecary from the corner of Sloane Street — successor to Mr Smith, a young Man said to be clever, & he is certainly very attentive & appears hitherto to have understood the complaint. There is a little pain in the Chest, but it is not considered of any consequence. Mr Haden calls it a general Inflammation. — He took twenty ounces of Blood from Henry last night — & nearly as much more this morning — & expects to have to bleed him again tomorrow, but he assures me that he found him quite as much better today as he expected. Henry is an excellent Patient, lies quietly in bed & is ready to swallow anything. He lives upon Medicine, Tea & Barley water. — He has had a great deal of fever, but not much pain of any sort — & sleeps pretty well. — His going to Chawton will probably end in nothing, as his Oxfordshire Business is so near; — as for myself, You may be sure I shall return as soon as I can.

Tuesday is in my brain, but you will feel the Uncertainty of it. — I want to get rid of some of my Things, & therefore shall send down a parcel by Collier on Saturday. Let it be paid for on my own account.- It will be mostly dirty Cloathes — but I shall add Martha’s Lambswool, your Muslin Handkerchiefs.-(India at 3/6) your Pens, 3 shillings & some articles for Mary, if I receive them in time from Mrs Hore. — Cleveland Row of course is given up. Mr Tilson took a note there this morning. Till yesterday afternoon I was hoping that the Medicine he had taken, with a good night’s rest would set him quite to rights. I fancied it only Bile — but they they say the disorder must have originated in a Cold.

You must fancy Henry in the back room upstairs — & I am generally there also, working or writing. — I wrote to Edward yesterday, to put off our Nephews till friday. I have a strong idea of their Uncle’s being well enough to like seeing them [tornJ that time. — I shall write to you next by my parcel — two days hence — unless there is anything particular to be communicated before, always excepted.–

The post has this moment brought me a letter from Edward. He is likely to come here on Tuesday next, for a day or two’s necessary business in his Cause.

Mrs Hore wishes to observe to Frank & Mary that she doubts their finding it answer to have Chests of Drawers bought in London, when the expense of carriage is considered. The two Miss Gibsons called here on Sunday, & brought a Letter from Mary, which shall also be put into the parcel. Miss Gibson looked particularly well. — I have not been able to return their call. — I want to get to Keppel Street again if I can, but it must be doubtfuL — The Creeds are agreable People themselves, but I fear must have had a very dull visit. —

I long to know how Martha’s plans go on. If you have not written before, write by Sunday’s post to Hans
Place. — I shall be more than ready for news of you by that time. — A change of weather at last! –Wind & Rain — Mrs Tilson has just called. ~ Poor Woman, she is quite a wretch, always ill. — God bless you.-
Yours affectionately
JA

Uncle Henry was very much amused with Cassy’s message, but if she were here now with the red shawl she woul make him laugh more than do him good. —
Miss Austen
Chawton
Alton
[Letters missing here J

“Writing to Cassandra from London, Jane Austen starts out in pleasantly epigrammatic manner: “Good apple pies are a considerable part of our domestic happiness,” she remarks, about the new cook. Then turning to her letter from the publisher John Murray, she delivers her famous quote: “He is a rogue of course, but a civil one.” Like a sharp businessman, he offers £450 for Emma – but “wants to have the Copyright of MP and S&S included. It will end in my publishing for myself I dare say. – He sends more praise however than I expected. It is an amusing Letter. You shall see it.”

There are some cheerful goings-on – Henry has returned, they dined with the Herries family, a large party of friends, “clever and accomplished,” and the day before was a pleasant visit with Mr. Jackson who “is fond of eating and does not like Mr. or Miss P.” Mr. Jackson, Deirdre tells us, married Miss Sarah Papillion. The Papillions were distant connections of the Knights, but more importantly, the Jacksons had three daughters, one of whom, Eleanor was to marry Henry Austen in 1820.

One more joking epigrammatic remark: “What weather we have! – What shall we do about it?” It’s summer still. And then the tone turns more serious. “Henry is not quite well – a bilious attack with fever – he came back from H. St yesterday & went to bed – the comical consequence of which was that Mr. Seymour & I dined tete a tete.” Wiliam Seymour was Henry’s friend and lawyer, a widower who contemplated proposing to Jane Austen but never did. Interestingly, I see that he is also the man who offered Jane Austen’s novel Susan to the publisher B. Crosby & Co.! Makes sense, as who better to do this business than Henry’s lawyer. It is of Seymour that Jane Austen writes in her signed “MAD” letter of 5 April 1809: “In the Spring of the year 1803 a MS Novel in 2 vol. entitled Susan was sold to you by a Gentleman of the name of Seymour, & the purchase money £10 recd. at the same time.”

However, a brisk search turns up many mentions of Seymour’s contemplated proposal but maddeningly no citations! He is said to have told Henry he would like to seek her hand, and he once escorted her from London to Chawton, but never made the proposal. The vague attributions are to Deirdre’s A Family Record, 2004 edition, but my edition is older and doesn’t have this reference. And nowhere does it say where Deirdre got her information. Argghh. Maybe someone else can find this? A Persuasions article by Deirdre cites her own article, “Jane Austen’s Laggard Suitor.” Notes and Queries ns 47 245.3 (Sept. 2000): 301-04. but I don’t have that lying around.

Jane continues about Henry, “He is calomeling & therefore in a way to be better & I hope may be well tomorrow.” A reminder (as if the vague mentions of bile and fever weren’t enough) how bad was medicine of the period; calomel is toxic mercury used at that period as purgative and laxative – we may recall how it wrecked the health of Louisa May Alcott. Still Jane is not seriously alarmed, and makes the social rearrangements necessary in Henry’s illness: “The Creeds of Hendon dine here today, which is rather unlucky – for he will hardly be able to show himself – & they are all Strangers to me. He has asked Mr. Tilson to come & take his place. I doubt our being a very agreable pair.” Deirdre’s biographical notes are unsatisfactory; she tells us that a Catherine Herries married 1813 Henry Knowles Creed, who later took Holy Orders, and that a Mr. William Creed and daughter “were living in Hampstead, near Hendon, in 1795, and in 1815 a Mr. H. Creed was living at 19 Hans Place, who may be the same HKC.” Well maybe he is and maybe he isn’t; but I do myself note that Hendon is where Anna and her husband were living recently, so maybe there’s some connection.

Mr. Gordon, a business friend of Henry’s, won’t be going to Chawton, nor any of the family coming here, for “Many of them are sick.” Then she writes the next day (Wednesday): “Henry’s illness is more serious than I expected. He has been in bed since three o’clock on Monday. It is a fever – something bilious, but cheifly Inflammatory. I am not alarmed – but I have determined to send this Letter today by the post, that you may know how things are going on.”

Mr. Haydon is called in. He is “the apothecary from the corner of Sloane St – successor to Mr. Smith, a young man said to be clever, & he is certainly very attentive & appears hitherto to have understood the complaint. There is a little pain in the Chest, but it is not considered of any consequence. Mr. H. calls it a general inflammation.” (Deirdre tells us he is Charles-Thomas Haden, not Haydon as Jane wrote it, 1786-1824), apothecary and surgeon, and a few more details about him, including that he was “delighted with Emma.”)

Then back to the ghastly period medicine: “He took twenty ounce of Blood from Henry last night – & nearly as much more this morng – & expects to have to bleed him again tomorrow, but he assures me that he found him quite as much better today as he expected.” Eeek! We have 12 units of blood in an average-sized man’s body, there’s 15.2 ounces in a unit. So if this much blood was taken from Henry in two days, that’s 60 ounces – that’s 4 units – A THIRD OF THE BLOOD IN HENRY’S BODY!! Can that be POSSIBLE? Holy cow. It’s no wonder Byron died partly from excessive blood letting…as well as many others. Reading about blood letting (Wiki), I see this is pretty standard treatment for “inflammation,” and the article says succinctly, “some successful, some not.”

Poor Henry “is an excellent Patient, lies quietly in bed & is ready to swallow anything. He lives upon Medicine, Tea & Barley water. – He has had a great deal of fever, but not much pain of any sort – & sleeps pretty well.” Jane Austen writes of the arrangements – she will send down a parcel to Chawton (“mostly dirty Cloathes but I shall add Martha’s Lambswool, your Muslin Handks…”) She fancied the illness “only Bile – but they say, the disorder must have originated in a Cold. You must fancy Henry in the back room upstairs – & I am generally there also, working or writing.”

She says she wrote to Edward to put off their nephews till Friday, “I have a strong idea of their Uncle’s being well enough to like seeing them by that time.” Edward himself is likely to come next Tuesday, “for a day or two’s necessary business in his Cause” (the Hinton lawsuit).

More chatter: advice to Frank and Mary from a Mrs. Hore about furniture (she seems to be a relation of Mary’s), and more of Mary’s relations, the Gibsons, have called, but JA could not return their call, nor get to Keppel Street, home of Charles’s wife’s family. The weather has changed, rainy now, and Mrs. Tilson has called, “quite a wretch, always ill.”

She closes with an unaccustomed “God bless you,” perhaps showing her anxiety, but to ease Cassandra’s, she mentions that Henry was amused by a message from Cassy, and if she was there “she wd make him laugh more than wd do him good.”

She is trying to be reassuring, but Deirdre’s note tells us that Henry “grew worse, and on Sunday 22 October JA wrote by express post to Cassandra, James, and Edward. Edward set off immediately for London on 23 October, James collected Cassandra from Chawton and they arrived in London on 25 October.”
This is not reflected in the letters, but I’ll end here, and take up the rest of the story next week.

Diana”

****************
My response and additions:

Henry’s Hans Place provides a congenial atmosphere for socializing: Olivia Williams as Jane now proud of her publishing (Miss Austen Regrets, 2008)

This is an important letter: real news of dealings over Emma (followed by a remnant of a letter by Henry to Murray), we see that Austen is dealing with a pre-eminent publisher of her day by this time. Her stature is coming along; whatever might be the stupidities of the remarks she copies out or the press, all three novels, S&S, P&P, and MP have been recognized as finished fine novels, moral, of a highly intelligent writer. Whence the review by none other than Scott of mostly Emma (we’ll come to that later).

Henry’s sickness. Details of medicine, his strain over coming bankruptcy coming out? More suitors? Henry looking for a wife, Henry’s friends and associates attracted to his sister? Mr Seymour, the so-called “laggard suitor” (the phrase is LeFaye’s) is said to have been someone who at least thought of proposing, was involved with the attempt to publish Northanger Abbey as Susan in 1803. A relationship with Haden, the apothecary begun.

One of the segments of Miss Austen Regrets conveys very well the sequence where Henry sickens, the bleeding, the real worry, and intertwine it accurately enough with the visit of Austen to Clarke. There they fictionalize by having Haydon the go-between, or (perhaps this is what was meant) someone accompanying her in the coach.

Both highly unlikely, but that there was a flirtation and real interest in this young man in Austen I am persuaded and the movie does justice — but not too much as he is attracted to the younger Fanny more (as the letters seem to suggest). It’s of interest that they call an apothecary; such a person is much less expensive, plus (to us paradoxically) apothecaries were more likely to hand out remedies, what passed for medicine. As today status is all in professions throughout the 19th century a man who made and sold medicines was of a muc lower stature than a surgeon (who could perform things) and surgeon lower than physician (theoretical). The doctor was gentleman, could and did dine with the family (remember Mr Gibson of Wives and Daughters), surgeons were lower and (paradoxically to us) took the title of Dr (Dr Thorne of Trollope’s novel of that name). There was slide though and Lydgate in Middlemarch is both surgeon and learned physician, but then he was a reformer (Deerbrooke by Harriet Martineau is another book which explores this). And here’s Val Sanborn’s good discussion in her Jane Austen’s worlds:

WE have one of the rare spots in the letters which makes for important Tuesdays however enigmatic. “Tuesday is in my brain.” I know this can be interpreted locally but the phrase itself is suggestive of something much more.

Cassandra hired a new cook — things looking up. Jane liked to eat and to drink. The phrase “domestic happiness” is redolent of 18th century values.

The publication of Emma: I add to Diana’s comments: Jane, Henry and Murray compromised in the end: published and advertised on 21, 22, 23 December 1815, Murray brought it out, but at the Austen’s expense with profits to her after 10 per cent commission to publisher, with copyright remaining hers. I wish we had that “amusing” letter – what was amusing about it, I wonder. His hypocrisy and dealings over money because in the next letter we find that Henry was not amused — but he is often austere and slightly disdainful, anything but pleased in his letters meant for public consumption.

Murray was not wrong to offer a lower price; when the price of the expensively printed book was set against the profits for it and a second edition of Mansfield Park, Jane Austen got only £121 and then £38 18. In fact she’d have done better to take the 450. (It’s not true that one should always hold onto copyrights if the case if you can get a large sum for a first copy; Trollope took big fees for his books upfront, sold the copyright and did very well — he didn’t want to be bothered with later cheaper editions, trying to make more money that way. ) By 1820, 529 copies of Emma were still in stock! There are similar disappointing figures for the second edition of Mansfield Park (the first sold briskly aftter P&P; so 1820 498 copies still on hand and remaindered). By contrast, the post-humous publication of NA and Persuasion did much better (1818 only 312 ot of 1,750 copies printed left with a profit of £ 515 17s 7d for Cassandra and Henry) — perhaps attention had been attraced by _telling her name_ and offering biogrpahy. That’s the way of the world. The clearest least tendentious account of this with numbers is by David Gilson, “Editions and Publishing History,” in J.David Grey’s The Jane Austen Handbook.

A very hot October. Then we find Austen in Henry’s world. The people mentioned are associates, friends, lawyers, all of whom connected with Austen as Henry’s sister. So the Jacksons have intermarried with the Papillons (remember the later joke by Jane that she will Papillon, no sacrifice too small); Eleanor would become Henry’s wife. I am impressed this morning by the reality that she was not a great catch (so like Francis’s choice of Mary Gibson); he was a bankrupt and curate by then, but also that he did marry non-materialistically. Austen alas characterized Eleanor as dumb in an earlier letter (see Diana’s quotation). Let’s hope Austen was unfair. Tilson is someone that Austen does regard as a partner they must visit Gordon connects to other marriage possibility as well. Seymour as Diana says was Henry’s lawyer, negotiated that niggardly £10 with Crosby; he does not seem to be a very good negotiator. This is the price Fanny Burney got in the later 1770s; the women at Minerva Press did better than this. And no clause demanding immediate or quick publication. It also shows how Austen was a nobody in 1803.

Then the long worrying sequence of Henry’s serious illnes,for so it was even at the start. Again I’m just adding to Diana’s comments: That’s a lot of blood all right to take out. Here I’d like to compare what’s being done to Henry today’s cancer treatments. Calomel was a hard poison — so is chemotherapy and chemotherapies are not well understood at all, why sometimes they work for this person, have disastrous adverse effects on other. Haydon did not try cupping but that’s burning which is how radiation feels. Finally the blood taking: a show of force like enemas (and today’s drastic surgeries).

How I love Henry for being ready to “swallow anything.” A man after my own heart. That’s a joke that extends beyond the food Austen makes him; he also swallows the concoctions Haydon puts together. Barley water is a traditional British Herbal tea — so she’s giving him this to be soothing. I note that in the paragraphs there is a strong tendency to look on the best side, and the attitude of mind reminds me of Elinor in the book (as opposed to the movies since 1995): Austen herself is hoping for the best, that this is not serious: “I was hoping that the Medicine he had taken, with a good night’s rest, would set him to rights.” Elinor at first hoped much from a good night’s rest for Marianna; alas, the next morning Marianne was worse.

Visits planned have to be given up: Cleveland Row, the Tilsons. Nephews put off until Uncle better and will “like seeing them.” They feared contagion? Edward coming for his lawsuit. I note that Tuesday is when Edward is coming (no resonance there) but again Henry had some business to transact (given up) but it seems Jane was not hopeful the business end would come out well, “the uncertainty of it” is tied to Tuesday in her brain.

Things needed are being sent (Jane will now pay!) and things sent (dirty clothes). I note Martha is not forgot: she has given Jane some lambswool she made.

I agree that note on Creed is evasive.

She ends on family news. I add to Diana’s on Mary and Frank, Keppel Street is where the Palmers reside — so that’s Charles news. There’s a slight dig about the Palmers (alas). Austen thinks the Creeds (whoever they were) would have a dull visit with the Palmers (as lower class, not as well educated?)

Again though Martha not forgot: “I long to know how Martha’s plans go on.” If Cassandra has not written before, she should write by Sunday to Hans Place.” I feel her anxiety there, the tone a spill over from Henry, but the content is she wants to know what is going on with Martha at Chawton. I see in these last phrases a sense of a woman’s world Jane implicitly assumes (but our editor and our male-dominated culture overlooks), it’s this association that brings Henry’s partner’s wife to mind: the wife is wretched all the time because if you pay attention you find she is often pregnant – and pregnancies meant childbirths with aftereffects, miscarriages (rarely mentioned in letters – Austen an exception here), I take it she’s tired.

I shall be more than ready for news of you by that time. — A change of weather at last! — Wind & Rain. — Mrs Tilson has just called. Poor Woman, she is quite a wretch, always ill. — God bless you …

Cassandra as dependable person.

Let us remember Cassy’s letter — No 93 — a clever one showing a girl who actually could identify servants as people like herself (Lefaye, 4th edition, pp 252-53, dated Mon-Thurs 18-21 Oct 1813). So Palmers are not always dull, are they? I take it Cassy is succeeding in making witty jokes to cheer her uncle: she apparently made laughter with something she did with a red shawl.

Cast ensemble of Miss Austen Regrets used to give us a feel of the gaiety Henry attempted in his London life, which Austen joins in herre.

4 Responses

IN the 1920s and 1930s, when Dr R. W. Chapman was researching in connection with his forthcoming publication of the collected letters of Jane Austen, he had several exchanges of correspondence with R. A. Austen-Leigh, the then senior collateral descendant in the Austen-Leigh line, regarding the identification of persons and places referred to in Jane’s correspondence. On 28 January 1928 R. A. Austen-Leigh wrote, from his London home of 74 Campden Hill Road:

… Mr. Seymour was his [Henry Austen’s] man of affairs.
Incidentally, as I expect you know, he is supposed to have
proposed marriage to Jane — which provides the point to an
allusion in one of her letters — I haven’t the reference
handy — that the comical result of Henry’s absence on some
occasion was that she had to dine tete-a-tete with Mr. S.[1]

Dr Chapman evidently wrote back querying the source of this information, but it was not until four years later that R. A. Austen-Leigh provided it, in a letter dated 8 January 1932 and sent from the offices of his publishing firm, Spottiswoode & Co., of 1 New Street Square, London EC4:

… I enclose a scrap that I came across last night when
looking for the Tilsons’ address which may interest you if
you do not know it. It seems however, sadly incomplete, and
I cannot for the moment think of who the teller of the
reminiscence can have been. Could it have been R. J. Smith?

The enclosed scrap, undated but in the handwriting of his uncle William Austen-Leigh (1843-1921), reads:

As I told my Mother-in-law of my very pleasant hours at
Chawton, she recalled an old Solicitor named Seymour telling
how he had escorted your illustrious Great-aunt from London
to Chawton in a postchaise, considering all the way whether
he should ask her to become his wife! He refrained however,
and afterwards married twice
(Letters, Vol. II pp. 92, 259)[2]
[given me by W.A.L. Aug. 15, 1910. R.A.A.L.]

The Austen-Leighs had either forgotten or had chosen not to refer to this tradition when they published their Jane Austen, her Life and Letters in 1913 — though, judging from his comment in the 1928 letter to Dr Chapman, R. A. Austen-Leigh seems to have thought vaguely that the information had indeed appeared in print somewhere. By the time Dr Chapman received R. A. Austen-Leigh’s second letter it was probably too late for him to pursue the matter further, as his two-volume edition of Jane Austen’s Letters was already in proof and was published later in 1932. In his note to this letter (No. 111 of his edition) Dr Chapman contented himself by saying: `It is believed that Mr. S. had at some time proposed marriage.’ In the present writer’s new edition of the Letters I added to this note: `This may be a family tradition passed on from RAAL to RWC, as no information at all on the subject can be found in the present AL archive.'[3] Now that this exchange of correspondence has come to light, the tradition can be discussed and rationalized as far as may be possible.

To begin with, R. A. Austen-Leigh suggested that the `teller of the reminiscence’ might have been R. J. Smith. This would have been Reginald John Smith (1857-1916), namesake and son-in-law of the George Smith (1824-1901) who owned the publishing firm Smith Elder & Co. and who founded DNB in 1882. George Smith married Elizabeth Blakeney in 1854, and Reginald John Smith, having married George’s daughter Isabel in 1893, joined Smith Elder in 1894 and by 1899 was the sole active partner. He also became editor of The Cornhill Magazine in 1898. However, although both George and Reginald John had many literary friends and contacts as a result of their publishing activities, neither seems to have had any professional or personal interest at all in Jane Austen and her works. No reason can be found for R. J. Smith to have paid a visit to Chawton at some unspecified date before 1910, nor does there seem to be any possible connection between his mother-in-law Mrs George Smith and Mr Seymour. It therefore seems probable that R. A. Austen-Leigh was mistaken, and that the identity of the `teller’ should be sought elsewhere.[4] To this end, Mr Seymour’s own biography, and his contacts with Jane Austen, should now be considered.

William Seymour was slightly older than Jane Austen, having been born in 1770. He does not appear in the records of Oxbridge graduates, but was in practice as a lawyer at 12 Margaret Street, Cavendish Square, London, by 1791, and remained at this address until 1800. He then moved to No. 19 Margaret Street, which had its office entrance round the comer at 12 Little Portland Street, and remained here until at least 1832, by which time his firm was Seymour, Browne & Wilson. At some time thereafter he retired to Brighton, where he became an active magistrate and also Deputy Lieutenant of Sussex, and died in Brighton on 11 March 1855 aged eighty-five. His obituary makes no reference to any widow or children.[5]

Jane’s brother Henry Austen resigned his commission in the Oxfordshire Militia in the spring of 1801 and moved to London, where he set himself up in a partnership with Henry Maunde and James Tilson as bankers and army agents. It was probably in this year, therefore, that he engaged William Seymour as the firm’s lawyer and general business agent; and it was certainly in the spring of 1803 that Mr Seymour, acting on behalf of Henry and Jane, sold the manuscript of Northanger Abbey (then known simply as Susan) to the London publishing firm of Benjamin Crosby & Son for the sum of £10.[6] Although Mr Seymour may not at that date have realized that Jane was the authoress of the manuscript, he would certainly have known her personally as the sister of his client and friend, and as such been in contact with her until the last year of her life. The next reference to him is in Jane’s letter to Cassandra of 25 April 1811, written from London and reporting on the smart musical evening party Henry had held two days previously at his large house in Sloane Street: `I was quite surrounded by acquaintance, especially Gentlemen; & what with Mr Hampson, Mr Seymour [and several others named] … I had quite as much upon my hands as I could do.'[7] The significant reference which R. A. Austen-Leigh had in mind occurs in Jane’s letter of 17-18 October 1815, again from London but this time from Henry’s widower’s household at 23 Hans Place, when she told Cassandra: `Henry is not quite well — a bilious attack with fever — he came back early from H.St. [his banking premises in Henrietta Street] yesterday & went to bed — the comical consequence of which was that Mr Seymour & I dined together tete a tete.’

It would therefore seem that Mr Seymour’s admiration for Jane had developed in 1811 or soon after, and that, as Jane’s father the Revd George Austen was dead, he had very properly sought Henry’s fraternal permission to pay his addresses to the latter’s sister. Henry then must have told Jane that Mr Seymour was considering making a formal proposal for her hand; as time passed and Mr Seymour still said nothing, there would indeed have been a sense of embarrassment in the air on any occasion thereafter when Jane and Mr Seymour found themselves alone together. The date of this non-proposal seems likeliest to have been in the early autumn of 1812, when the copyright of Pride and Prejudice was sold. Jane had probably come to London with her manuscript and stayed with Henry while he negotiated on her behalf with Egerton;[8] and if Henry himself was unable to escort her back to Chawton, it would be entirely reasonable for him to ask Mr Seymour to do so — the couple no doubt being chaperoned in the postchaise by a maidservant on the third seat.[9]

In the winter of 1815-16 Mr Seymour was advising Henry on the necessary action regarding the impending bankruptcy of the partnership of Austen Maunde & Tilson — including a flying visit to Chawton for this purpose;[10] and later in 1816 he paid open court to Mr Maunde’s widowed sister Mrs Anne Jane Skrine, to the extent that Jane wrote in September to Cassandra: `I collect from her [Fanny Knight] that Mr. Seymour is either married or on the point of being married to Mrs Scrane. — She is not explicit, because imagining us to be informed.'[11] However, once again Mr Seymour lost his nerve or changed his mind, because in the 1830s Mrs Skrine was Mrs Skrine still.[12] This September 1816 comment is the last reference to Mr Seymour in Jane Austen’s letters, and when or whom he did eventually marry is unknown.

The two other unknown quantities in the reported anecdote are the identity of the lady to whom Mr Seymour confided his past admiration for Jane Austen, and that of her son-in-law who transmitted the tale to William Austen-Leigh decades later. With so little information to go on, it is quite impossible to identify these people with certainty — but a trail of personal contacts can now be pursued which provides a feasible pedigree for the descent of the tradition.

It is obvious from the above history of Mr Seymour that he was on very close terms with the families of Austen, Maunde, and Tilson, not only as the partnership’s lawyer but as a personal friend who felt able to contemplate marrying partners’ sisters. The third member of the firm, James Tilson, had no marriageable sisters, but he did have several young daughters, all of whom would have been known to Mr Seymour from their earliest days. One of these, Charlotte-Sophia Tilson (1804-1902), married in 1834 the Revd John-Thomas Austen (1794-1876), rector of Aldworth, Berkshire and later a Canon of Canterbury Cathedral. The Revd John-Thomas belonged to one of the Kentish branches of the Austen family, and was a second cousin of Henry and Jane Austen of Steventon; the tradition amongst his descendants was that Henry had been responsible for introducing him to Charlotte-Sophia Tilson.[13] It is suggested, therefore, that it was the news of the Tilson — Austen engagement which put Mr Seymour in reminiscent mood and encouraged him to tell Miss Tilson how he too had nearly married an Austen some twenty years previously — so that she becomes the `mother-in-law’ of the anecdote. The issue of this Austen — Tilson marriage was a daughter, Frances-Eliza (1836-64), who married ante 1859 the Revd Dr James Cartmell (1810-81), Master of Christ’s College, Cambridge from 1849-81 — suggested therefore to be the son-in-law who spent the `pleasant hours at Chawton’ later in the nineteenth century. He and Frances-Eliza had a son, James junior (1862-1921), before she died young in her third childbirth. James junior grew up to become a barrister, and in later life was sufficiently proud of his Austen ancestry to add Austen- as a prefix to Cartmell. He married in 1886 Mary Affleck Peacock, by whom he had one daughter.[14]

It is therefore suggested that, perhaps as a result of the publication of Revd James Edward Austen-Leigh’s Memoir of Jane Austen in 1870, the Revd Dr James Cartmell made a literary pilgrimage to Chawton to see the home of his son’s famous collateral ancestress, and, being now a widower, upon his return discussed his trip with his mother-in-law. In her childhood Mrs John-Thomas Austen had often seen Jane Austen when the latter had visited Henry during his days as a London banker and called upon the Tilsons on the same occasions, hence talk of Chawton was the spur that made her recall old Mr Seymour’s confidences to her years ago when she had married into the family.

The final link in this speculative chain is the transmission of the anecdote to William Austen-Leigh, of whom Jane Austen was the `illustrious Great-aunt’, at some time before Revd Dr James Cartmell’s death in 1881. This could have taken place easily in the academic world, as William Austen-Leigh was a Fellow of King’s College, Cambridge from 1864-1921, and so would have a number of years to be in contact with Revd Dr Cartmell.

It is emphasised that the identification of Tilsons and Cartmells as the sources of the anecdote can be nothing but pure speculation; but unless and until any further information on the subject comes to light, the above line of oral descent would seem to be the likeliest explanation of this tantalizingly vague scrap of Austenian biography.

1 This and the second letter with enclosure are contained m a bundle of miscellaneous documents and correspondence addressed to Dr Chapman by many people over a number of years concerning the first and second editions of his Jane Austen’s Letters. The bundle was sent by him in 1953 to Mr W. Hugh Curtis, FSA, in Alton; as Mr Curtis was involved there with the recently formed Jane Austen Society, Dr Chapman felt he was the best person to hold these papers At some later date Mr Curtis passed the bundle to Mr T. Edward Carpenter, founder of the Jane Austen Memorial Trust, and it is now kept in the archives of the Trust at Jane Austen’s House in Chawton. The writer’s thanks are due to the present head of the Trust, Mr Tom Carpenter, for permission to study these papers during the summer of 1999 and to publish this particular correspondence.

2 This reference is to the Brabourne edition of the Letters of Jane Austen (London, Bentley, 1884).
3 Jane Austen’s Letters, ed. Deirdre Le Faye (OUP, 1995); now Letter No 121, pp. 291 and 445
4 For George Smith, see the memoir prefixed to the First Supplement of DNB; for Reginald John Smith see DNB for 1912-21.
5 Personal communication from the Regulation and Information Services of The Law Society, October 1999; Law List for 1809; Knight archive in Hampshire Record Office — 18M61/Box 71/14 and /17; Gentleman’s Magazine for 1855(i), 545
6 Le Faye, Letters Nos. 68(D) and 68(A), pp. 174-5.
7 Le Faye, Letter No. 71, p. 183.
8 Le Faye, Letter No. 77, p. 197.
9 For the pull-out third seat in a postchaise, see Northanger Abbey (ed. Chapman, Oxford University Press, 1965), 155, and Mansfield Park (ed. Chapman, Oxford University Press, 1966), 445.
10 Le Faye, Letters Nos. 129, p. 302, and 137, p. 311.
11 Le Faye, Letter No. 144, p. 318. Jane spells the name as `Scrane’, which is presumably as she had heard it spoken; however, this must be a quirk of early nineteenth-century pronunciation, as the bearer clearly spells it `Skrine’ in her own correspondence
12 Knight archive in Hampshire Record Office: 18M61/ Box F/Bundle 6/part 1.
13 Le Faye, ed. cit., 485.
14 For James Austen-Cartmell see: R. A. Austen-Leigh, Pedigree of Austen (privately printed 1940); Venn, Alum Cantab; Times obituary, 30 May 1921.

~~~~~~~~

By Deirdre Le Faye, Portishead

***********

Comment: to me what to keep your eye on is that what’s known (or guessed authoritatively) reflects popular views. So I’d say she does everything possible to put a damper on the idea that there was anything between Seymour and Jane Austen and (I suggest) for the same reason she will do this over Haydon: she identifies with the family’s high view of themselves and would not want to think Jane Austen could marry Henry’s solicitor (though not as bad as an apothecary). The use of the term “laggard” puts Seymour in his place.

Diana Birchall: Vic Sanborn and Tony Grant have done an interesting post about The Ring on Vic’s Jane Austen’s World blog. The subject’s been covered so much in the news most of us here probably know a good deal about it, and I certainly do look forward to seeing the ring for real on my next visit to Chawton – only then will one see what it “really looked like,” size, true color, fragility. A huge close-up full color photograph does not give the true feeling of such a small object.

What struck me on reading about the ring this time (and I’ve done my own blog post about it some time ago which covered some of the same ground) came from examining the handwritten note Cassandra wrote when she sent the ring to Henry’s fiancee Eleanor Jackson in 1820. I’ll copy the text here:

My dear Caroline,
The enclosed ring, once belonged to your Aunt Jane – It was given to me by your Aunt Cassandra – as soon as she knew that I was engaged to your Uncle – I bequeath it to you – God bless you! Ever your affectionate
Elr Austen November 1869

I find it intriguing that Cassandra did not keep the ring for her own lifetime, but was in such a hurry to give it to Eleanor Austen that she did not even wait until she was actually married to Henry, which happened three years after Jane’s death. After all, engagements get broken, that was taking a chance! I imagine she chose to give the ring to Eleanor as a token of Jane’s feeling for her brother Henry. You notice she did this instead of giving it directly to an Austen female family member, plenty of whom had been close to Aunt Jane and were young married women themselves in 1820 – Anna and Fanny, and Caroline Austen (who got the ring in 1869 at age 64) was 15 in 1920. Perhaps Cassandra knew that as a sober and bereaved spinster she would never wear the brightly colored ring herself but it would sit in a drawer, so was better off with a young bride. Eleanor we see in the end did give the ring to one of the blood relations who had been closest to Austen, Caroline, who in 1869 was working with her brother JEAL on their recollections of Aunt Jane. Perhaps knowing about that project was what induced Eleanor to give her that ring, for at that date, Caroline’s older sister Anna and cousin Fanny were still alive.

I notice that Deirdre Le Faye gives 1864 as Eleanor’s death date, though Eleanor wrote the above note in 1869. Perhaps when Deirdre did her Letters and Family Record she may not have had access to the note, as the ring was kept so hidden by the Jenkyns family. I have no idea why they kept Jane Austen’s ring such a family secret, that even an insider like Deirdre seems not to have known about it.

All this has made me want to know more about Eleanor Jackson. There are only a couple of mentions of her in Austen’s letters. Deirdre writes about the Jackson family:

Henry Jackson of 9 Sloane Terrace, Chelsea, and his wife Sarah Papillon, their three daughters; Eleanor (married 1920 as his second wife HTA, and died 1864 [sic]), Henrietta, and Sarah. A Charles Jackson succeeded HTA as perpetual curate of Bentley in 1839, and may also be part of this family. See E. Midgley, “The Revd Henry and Mrs. Eleanor Austen’, Collected Reports, II. 86-90.

In Family Record, Deirdre writes:

On 11 April 1820 Henry married again – not one of the ‘favorites’ of bygone London days, but a Miss Eleanor Jackson, niece of Revd. John Papillon of Chawton. Little is known about her except that Edward Rice thought she had ‘a very good pair of Eyes’ [this is in the Rice archive], and she may be the same ‘Eleanor’ who is mentioned as a Papillon niece in Jane’s letter of 24 January 1813.

Here is the mention in Jane’s letter:

The Papillons have now got the Book & like it very much; their niece Eleanor has recommended it most warmly to them. – She looks like a rejected Addresser.

Rejected Addresses is on Gutenberg. Wiki says it’s a parody by James and Horace Smith (1812). It’s a jocular collection of poems and tributes by various writers, all submitted to celebrate the re-opening of Drury Lane Theatre, destroyed by fire. And what a hodge podge they are! Some wonderful (there’s one by Lord B who I take to be Byron) and others are stilts and bladders. Great fun really, and you can definitely see how reading these aloud in the evening must have been marvelous entertainment to an early 19th century family – Austens and Papillons alike. Really this sort of thing is invaluable in learning about the intellectual, reading world of JA’s day.

But what I’m after here, of course, is trying to figure out what Jane Austen meant by saying Eleanor Jackson looked like a rejected Addresser. Does that mean she was like a bad or comical or satiric poem? It certainly is one of Austen’s sharp remarks – hardly a compliment, even if Eleanor (like Elizabeth Bennet) did have fine eyes!

I will look up the article in Collected Reports, but lord knows when I’ll find it…I have a whole run going back to 1978, but Deirdre’s system of citation for this journal, I have long lamented as impossible. So it’s going to take a major search, which I haven’t time for now, but I’ll report back. Why in the heck doesn’t she at least cite the YEAR of the article?!

Boy, this is me getting seriously ticked off here. I googled and found the Midge article cited in several places this way: See E. Midgley, ‘The Revd Henry and Mrs Eleanor Austen’, Collected Reports, II. 86–91, and another saying 1989. So I pulled them all down and searched 1979 – 1994, no joke. And I can’t find it anywhere! The articles in the Collected Reports are so delightful, erudite, detailed, redolent of the best sort of antiquarian Austen studies – why on earth aren’t they catalogued properly?? I’ll have a better search when I have more time (I’m on deadline…I could have missed it), but honestly! If anybody finds it, for Pete’s sake give me a heads up. One more detail, I also find it interesting that a “stretcher” was put into the ring, denoting that a person with slimmer fingers than the original owner would wear it. We think of Jane as quite slim, judging by descriptions.

A suggestion: maybe Cassandra liked Eleanor and hoped Henry would marry her; it as a hinting inducement. The dig at Eleanor by Austen in her letter again shows that there were lots of areas where Cassandra and Jane didn’t see eye-to-eye. Cassandra liked morally coercive fiction, Austen didn’t. Perhaps Eleanor seemed to Cassandra a moral woman (religious, pious). Henry had an austere side in evidence even in his Loiterers. We might also remember during these couple of years after Jane’s death Henry and Cassandra collaborated on bringing out NA and Persuasion; perhaps Eleanor involved in some useful capacity? so a gift in return? The Collected Reports are filled with information — antiquarian, no outlook or point of view emerges except implicitly a pro-establishment one. It’s good that the ring does not go into private hands for then it often leaves public viewing, even if we are not as secretive as these Austen family and friends were.

Austen does not seem slender to me. The depiction of her from the back shows a sturdy body. Later when she became mortally ill, she probably became skeletal, but not yet.

The tone of the letter to Cassandra is direct and straightforward, as Jane is delivering news, not filling space so as to provide a response to another letter. She begins with the cook and the memorable line that “good apple pies are a considerable part of our domestic happiness.” Quotable, that one. Then she turns to talk of the “rogue” Mr Murray, which has been well covered already, with Arnie uncovering rogue sources and others commenting on the strained relationship between JA and Murray. Murray offers 450 pounds for… Emma, I presume … 45,000 in our money, not a bad advance, I imagine–but he wants the copyrights to MP and S&S as well. Goodness. At least he understood that these were novels worth owning. (I wonder what kind of advance Jane Austen would get were she suddenly to pop up alive today… ) Most of the letter, however, is concerned with Henry’s illness, which, as others have noted, is not trivial. The family calls in a doctor and the doctor bleeds Henry, a seemingly barbaric treatment, but no more so than much they do today when they don’t know wha telse to do. Henry is also “calomeling.” I looked this up and was led back to … letter 121 of JA, but I did find this somewhat contemporary reference in regards to the Lewis and Clark expedition at http://lewis-clark.org/content/content-article.asp?ArticleID=2564:

“One significant medicine was not imported—the famous Bilious Pills of Benjamin Rush. (They were actually anti-bilious pills. A patient was said to be “bilious” when supposed poor flow of bile in the body caused a complex of symptoms including constipation, headache, and lassitude.)
Dr. Rush had expressly indicated to Lewis that when one of his men showed the “sign of an approaching disease . . . take one or two of the opening pills.” Nicknamed “Rush’s Thunderbolts,” the pills were reputed to contain 10 grains of calomel and 10 to 15 grains of jalap, both potent laxatives. By opening up the bowels, Rush believed that the body would then expel the excess bile or other matter causing illness.”

So Henry was taking laxatives, and JA was left to entertain guests she doesn’t know.

Others have commented that illness was taken seriously at that time: Jane’s detailed reports to Cassandra and sending a letter by post, indicating there must have been a cheaper, slower method she wasn’t using, as well as Edward’s plan to visit Henry indicate that this illness was taken seriously. I am struck anew by how little they knew medically and how much, therefore, was touch and go. JA spends her time in Henry’s room, writing letters and possibly (?) working on Persuasion? She is too busy or preoccupied with Henry (and writing?) to return visits. But JA also uses the letter as a chance to deliver news about purchases and goods being sent home. I am continually reminded of the importance of London to purchasing needed–or wanted–goods.

Ja ends by noting that she is very much looking forward to news, both of Cassandra and home and of Martha: “I long to know how Martha’s plans go on.” She is doing her best for brother, but missing her community of women.

[…] 1815 letters together (to Anna Lefroy and Fanny Austen Knight, to Anna Lefroy and Caroline Austen, about Murray), fragments most of them, and see the context: Austen is writing the first, revising and producing […]